Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed PEP on concurrent programming support

2012-01-12 Thread PJ Eby
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:07:27 -0500 > PJ Eby wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > For > > > instance, combining STM with explicit locking would allow explicit > > > locking when IO was required, > > I don't think

Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed PEP on concurrent programming support

2012-01-11 Thread Matt Joiner
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:07:27 -0500 > PJ Eby wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: >> > A suite is marked >> > as a `transaction`, and then when an unlocked object is modified, >> > instead of indicating an error, a lock

Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed PEP on concurrent programming support

2012-01-11 Thread Mike Meyer
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:07:27 -0500 PJ Eby wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > > A suite is marked > > as a `transaction`, and then when an unlocked object is modified, > > instead of indicating an error, a locked copy of it is created to be > > used through the rest of th

Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed PEP on concurrent programming support

2012-01-03 Thread PJ Eby
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > STM is a relatively new technology being experimented with in newer > languages, and in a number of 3rd party libraries (both Peak [#Peak]_ > and Kamaelia [#Kamaelia]_ provide STM facilities). I don't know about Kamaelia, but PEAK's STM (part